Democrats have refused to distance themselves from Louis Farrakhan who has referred to Jews as the “synagogue of Satan.”

Nation of Islam leader and prominent antisemite Louis Farrakhan chanted “Death to America” and claimed that “America has never been a democracy”

Several prominent American activists and politicians have been linked to Farrakhan in recent years. Tamika Mallory, a leader of the Women’s March, praised him as “GOAT” or “Greatest of All Time.” Linda Sarsour, another leader of the March, attended an event with Farrakhan and has repeatedly refused to condemn him.

Farrakhan has led the black nationalist group Nation of Islam since 1977 and is known for hyperbolic hate speech aimed at the Jewish community.

During the speech in Chicago, Farrakhan made several anti-Semitic comments, including, “the powerful Jews are my enemy.”

“White folks are going down. And Satan is going down. And Farrakhan, by God’s grace, has pulled the cover off of that Satanic Jew and I’m here to say your time is up, your world is through,” he later said.

The May 27 sermon was his first major public speaking appearance since February, according to the Anti-Defamation League.

During his sermon Farrakhan, a known anti-Semite, warned his listeners about “satanic Jews who have infected the whole world with poison and deceit.”

Farrakhan also claimed that contemporary Jews are responsible for promoting child molestation, misogyny, police brutality and sexual assault, among other social ills. In addition, he asserted that contemporary Judaism is nothing but a “system of tricks and lies” that Jews study in order to learn how to “dominate” non-Jews.

(CLICK)It was a 110-degree day in Phoenix and the U.S. attorney general was getting ready to leave her plane at Sky Harbor International Airport when, as she remembers it, someone told her former President Bill Clinton wanted to chat.

As detailed in a report released Thursday by the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Justice, Loretta Lynch, then the attorney general, expected not much more than a quick hello.

Clinton, on the other hand, seemed in the mood to chat on that June 2016 evening.

Lynch, according to her interview in the report, said she felt increasingly uncomfortable as the minutes ticked by and Bill Clinton showed no signs of leaving.

Meanwhile, her aides, sitting in a vehicle on the Sky Harbor tarmac became fidgety, the report says. Finally, one aide bolted from the vehicle and announced she was heading into the plane.

That meeting at the Phoenix airport would prove consequential. At the time, Lynch’s Department of Justice was investigating presidential candidate Hillary Clinton over her handling of classified information sent through emails.

The 20 minutes with Bill Clinton would cement then-FBI Director James Comey’s decision that he, and not Lynch, would be the person to publicly announce that Clinton would not face criminal charges. Comey, in that July statement, said that while Clinton did not break the law, her handling of classified material was “extremely careless.”

This election is about right and wrong, truth and lies, America and Globalization, law abiding citizens and illegal aliens, about the Constitution. Criminal Democrats colluded with Russians in 2016; the DNC headed by Hillary “lock her up” Clinton, colluded with GPS to infiltrate the Trump campaign with false information. Their plan to bring Trump down failed.

We have learned how much the swamp is filled with career criminals who will do anything to protect their turf. They are afraid that Trump will expose their incestuous relationship with the Democrats. Now is the time to vote for TRUTH AND JUSTICE, NOW IS THE TIME TO VOTE FOR AMERICA, THE LAND OF THE FREE.

If Democrats win, your freedom will be gone; ILLEGALS WILL TAKE OVER YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD, RAPE YOUR DAUGHTER, KILL YOUR PARENTS AND THEN KILL YOU. THEY BRING GANG WARFARE TO THE UNITED STATES, DRUGS, PROSTITUTION AND RAPE.

CLICK HEREFOR THE BEST COMMERCIAL OF 2018, VOTE REPUBLICAN ON TUESDAY, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

VOTE TRUMP – MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN

VOTE CONSTITUTION – VOTE DEMOCRACY – VOTE AGAINST HYPOCRISY – VOTE AGAINST SOCIALISM – VOTE AGAINST OBAMA – VOTE AGAINST TYRANNY – VOTE FOR INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY – VOTE AGAINST THE GREATEST DANGER TO AMERICA THAT BEING THE DEMOCRAT AGENDA TO CONTROL YOUR LIFE FROM CRADLE TO GRAVE

The MS-13 Caravan threat supported by Pelosi and SchumerA National Assessment

They perpetrate violence—from assaults to homicides, using firearms, machetes, or blunt objects—to intimidate rival gangs, law enforcement, and the general public. They often target middle and high school students for recruitment. And they form tenuous alliances…and sometimes vicious rivalries…with other criminal groups, depending on their needs at the time.

Who are they? Members of Mara Salvatrucha, better known as MS-13, who are mostly Salvadoran nationals or first generation Salvadoran-Americans, but also Hondurans, Guatemalans, Mexicans, and other Central and South American immigrants. And according to our recent national threat assessment of this growing, mobile street gang, they could be operating in your community…now or in the near future.

Based on information from our own investigations, from our state and local law enforcement partners, and from community organizations, we’ve concluded that while the threat posed by MS-13 to the U.S. as a whole is at the “medium” level, membership in parts of the country is so concentrated that we’ve labeled the threat level there “high.”

Here are some other highlights from our threat assessment:

MS-13 operates in at least 42 states and the District of Columbia and has about 6,000-10,000 members nationwide. Currently, the threat is highest in the western and northeastern parts of the country, which coincides with elevated Salvadoran immigrant populations in those areas. In the southeast and central regions, the current threat is moderate to low, but recently, we’ve seen an influx of MS-13 members into the southeast, causing an increase in violent crimes there.

MS-13 members engage in a wide range of criminal activity,including drug distribution, murder, rape, prostitution, robbery, home invasions, immigration offenses, kidnapping, carjackings/auto thefts, and vandalism. Most of these crimes, you’ll notice, have one thing in common—they are exceedingly violent. And while most of the violence is directed toward other MS-13 members or rival street gangs, innocent citizens often get caught in the crossfire.

MS-13 is expanding its membership at a “moderate” rate through recruitment and migration. Some MS-13 members move to get jobs or to be near family members—currently, the southeast and the northeast are seeing the largest increases in membership. MS-13 often recruits new members by glorifying the gang lifestyle (often on the Internet, complete with pictures and videos) and by absorbing smaller gangs.

Speaking of employment, MS-13 members typically work for legitimate businesses by presenting false documentation. They primarily pick employers that don’t scrutinize employment documents, especially in the construction, restaurant, delivery service, and landscaping industries.

Right now, MS-13 has no official national leadership structure. MS-13 originated in Los Angeles, but when members migrated eastward, they began forming cliques that for the most part operated independently. These cliques, though, often maintain regular contact with members in other regions to coordinate recruitment/criminal activities and to prevent conflicts. We do believe that Los Angeles gang members have an elevated status among their MS-13 counterparts across the country, a system of respect that could potentially evolve into a more organized national leadership structure.

One final word about MS-13: the FBI, through its MS-13 National Joint Task Force and field investigations, remains committed to working with our local, state, national, and international partners to disrupt and dismantle this violent gang.

Note: the assessment is law enforcement sensitive and is not publicly available.

Vote for Democrats

IF YOU LIKE ILLEGALS VOTING

If you like illegals raping your daughter

If you like illegals murdering your daughter

If you like Pelosi’s support for gang rapists and murderers entering our country

If you like Schumer who supports the caravan making its way through Latin America

If you like to see illegals getting free welfare, hospital care, education, housing and legal advice that you pay for

If you like illegals terrorizing neighborhoods

If you like illegals threatening your child to join a gang

If you like illegals having anchor babies (click here for Laura Ingraham)

President Trump on Wednesday reached back 25 years to Democratic Sen. Harry Reid’s comments that “no sane country”would support birthright citizenship to bolster his effort to strip that guarantee from the 14th Amendment.

“Harry Reid was right in 1993, before he and the Democrats went insane and started with the Open Borders (which brings massive Crime) ‘stuff.’ Don’t forget the nasty term Anchor Babies. I will keep our Country safe. This case will be settled by the United States Supreme Court!,” Trump wrote on his Twitter account

President Trump’s announcement Tuesday that he is preparing an executive order to end birthright citizenship has the left and even some conservatives in an uproar. But the president is correct when he says that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution does not require universal birthright citizenship.

An executive order by President Trump ending birthright citizenship would face a certain court challenge that would wind up in the Supreme Court. But based on my research of this issue over several years, I believe the president’s view is consistent with the view of the framers of the amendment.

Those who claim the 14th Amendment mandates that anyone born in the U.S. is automatically an American citizen are misinterpreting the amendment in a manner inconsistent with the intent of the amendment’s framers.

Universal birthright citizenship attracts illegal immigration. By granting immediate citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of the legal status of the parents, we reward and encourage illegal and exploitative immigration.

Most countries around the world do not provides birthright citizenship. We do so based not upon the requirements of federal law or the Constitution, but based upon an erroneous executive interpretation. That should be changed.

Many Republicans, Democrats and independents believe the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, even if their parents are here illegally. But that ignores the text and legislative history of amendment, which was ratified in 1868 to extend citizenship to freed slaves and their children.

Contrary to popular belief, the 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all people born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship.

Critics of the president’s possible action erroneously claim that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself or herself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal immigrants alike.

But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.

The fact that tourists or illegal immigrants are subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws means that they are subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. and can be prosecuted. But it does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.

This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.

The amendment was intended to give citizenship only to those who owed their allegiance to the United States and were subject to its complete jurisdiction. Sen. Lyman Trumbull, R-Ill., a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” meant not owing allegiance to any other country.

Universal birthright citizenship attracts illegal immigration. By granting immediate citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of the legal status of the parents, we reward and encourage illegal and exploitative immigration.

Today many people do not seem to understand the distinction between partial, territorial jurisdiction – which subjects all foreigners who enter the U.S. to the jurisdiction of our laws – and complete political jurisdiction, which requires allegiance to the U.S. government as well.

So while a foreign tourist could be prosecuted for violating a criminal statute, he could not be drafted if we had a military draft or otherwise be subject to other requirements imposed on citizens, such as serving on a jury. If a foreign tourist has a baby while in the U.S., her child is a citizen of her home country and owes no political allegiance to the U.S.

In the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”

This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States.

American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to all people born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter the legal status of their parents.

Most legal arguments for universal birthright citizenship point to the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. But that decision only stands for the very narrow proposition that children born of lawful, permanent residents are U.S. citizens.

The high court decision says nothing about the children of illegal immigrants or the children of tourists, students, and other foreigners only temporarily present in this country being automatically considered U.S. citizens. Those children are considered citizens of the native countries of their parents, just like children born abroad to American parents are considered U.S. citizens, no matter where the children are born.

The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment as extending to the children of legal noncitizens was incorrect, according to the text and legislative history of the amendment. But even under that holding, citizenship was not extended to the children of illegal immigrants – only permanent, legal residents.

U.S. immigration law (8 U.S.C. § 1401) simply repeats the language of the 14th Amendment, including the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The federal government has erroneously interpreted that statute to provide passports and other benefits to anyone born in the United States, regardless of whether their parents are here illegally and regardless of whether the applicant meets the requirement of being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S.

As a result, the president of the United States has the authority to direct federal agencies to act in accordance with the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, and to issue passports and other government documents and benefits only to those individuals whose status as U.S. citizens meets this requirement.

WHY AMERICA NEEDS TRUMP

Is Trump Our Last Chance?

Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, August 20, 2015

Donald Trump may be the last hope for a president who would be good for white people.

Donald Trump’s new position paper on immigration makes it official: He is easily the best presidential candidate on border security and immigration since Pat Buchanan. And we can be sure he is not a bait-and-switch politician who excites supporters with a few sensible ideas and then betrays them. Mr. Trump has single-handedly made immigration the key issue of this election. His heart is in it when he says we need to build a wall, deport illegals, and have an immigration “pause” until every American who wants a job gets one.

But can he win? The white percentage of the electorate drops every election. It was 74 percent in 2012 and likely to be 72 percent in 2016. Time is running out for white people, but a unique set of circumstances in 2016 may give them a real chance–perhaps their last chance–to elect a president who would actually help them rather than hurt them.

But if Mr. Trump wins, can he deliver? Every institution in America would join forces against a president with sensible policies, but a bold, thick-skinned chief executive supported by a carefully picked cabinet could rewrite the rules about how Americans think and talk about their country.

Mr. Trump’s positions on immigration are built on three principles: 1. A nation without borders is not a nation. 2. A nation without laws is not a nation. 3. A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation. It’s startling to hear a politician even talk about what defines “a nation,” much less get it more or less right. The idea that immigration should benefit Americans rather than foreigners is revolutionary by today’s standards.

Many of Mr. Trump’s specific proposals could be implemented without much fuss. He would make the E-Verify system mandatory for all employers, which would make it impossible for illegals to work for anything but under-the-table cash. Anybody caught hiring illegals would be punished. He would end the Earned Income Tax Credit for illegals, and would stop granting visas to any country that refuses to take back citizens we want to deport. He would kick out every criminal alien who has served his sentence, unlike Mr. Obama, who seems to like keeping them here.

Mr. Trump would triple the number of ICE officials and end the policy of catch-and-release, under which ICE often tells local authorities who have caught an illegal to let him go. He would make H1-B visas harder to get, and would enforce a policy of hiring Americans first. He would set up a tracking system to catch and deport anyone who overstays his visa. He would deport any illegal alien who is a gang member, and would stop all federal payments to so-called sanctuary cities. All immigrants would have to prove they have the means to support themselves. Although this is not included in his policy paper, Mr. Trump has also said ininterviews that he would scrap all of Mr. Obama’s executive amnesties. All these things could probably be done just by enforcing laws on the books or by changing regulations.

Some of Mr. Trump’s other ideas would take more work: his call for an end to birth-right citizenship, for example. Arguably, he could simply order agencies to issue passports and social security numbers only to children born of citizens and permanent residents. Or he could get Congress to pass legislation to this effect. In either case, thetangled interpretations of the 14th Amendment would guarantee a legal challenge. Courts would probably find that the children of illegals are not citizens. Ideally, they would find that the 14th Amendment, which was passed to grant citizenship to former slaves, gives no child born of foreigners automatic citizenship.

Mr. Trump has also suggested in interviews that he wants to deport all illegals, not just criminals. This is by no means “impossible,” as critics claim. With E-Verify and employer sanctions, plenty of illegals would “self-deport,” just as Mitt Romney said they would.

The key, however, would be a few well publicized raids on non-criminal illegals. Television images of Mexican families dropped over the border with no more than they could carry would be very powerful. The vast majority of illegals would quickly decide to get their affairs in order and choose their own day of departure rather than wait for ICE to choose it for them. The main thing would be to convince illegals that ICE was serious about kicking them out. Ironically, the more ICE was prepared to do, the less it would have to do.

But those same images of Mexican families would raise a world-wide stink. They would send the libs and legals into a gibbering frenzy, so a Trump administration would have to have backbone. Deporting illegals–even tearful families with “deep roots in the community”–is entirely consistent with current law, so there could be no court challenge. It would be a simple matter of ignoring the gibbering, and getting on with the job. If churches harbored illegals, ICE teams would have to haul them out. Getting serious about deportation would set a marvelous example for the Europeans and would bring illegal immigration to a dead stop.

We might not even need the wall Mr. Trump plans to build, though it’s certainly a good thing to have. The trick would be getting the Mexicans to pay for it, as Mr. Trump promises they will. The position paper says a Trump administration would divert remittances to Mexico from illegal immigrants, but it would be hard to verify which payments were from illegals, and plenty of them would love an excuse to stop sending money home anyway. The paper also says we could increase fees on visas issued to CEOs and diplomats, charge more for border-crossing cards, levy an entry fee at the Mexican border, and impose tariffs on Mexican goods. Making every Mexican who crossed the border pay a stiff fee until the wall was built sounds like a fine idea, but the others probably would not raise much money or would violate treaties.

One way Mr. Trump says he would make Mexico pay for the wall is to cut off foreign aid. Depending on how it’s calculated, handouts to Mexico runs to as much as $900 million a year. It’s hard to understand why Mexicans deserve even a dime of our taxes. Turning off the tap would be instant savings, whether to pay for a wall or not.

Finally, Mr. Trump’s “pause” in issuing green cards would be a wonderful thing, but it would probably require legislation. The Immigration Act of 1990 raised the annual number of visas passed out each year from 290,000 to 675,000 (not including refugee or H1-B visas and all kinds of other dubious waivers and exemptions) and set up the diversity-visa lottery that lets in another 55,000 a year. Every year there are about one million people who become lawful permanent residents (LPRs) or “green card holders.”

Of course, Mr. Trump could take a leaf out of Mr. Obama’s book and legislate by executive order. If President Obama can simply decide not to enforce the law against minors who were smuggled into the country–and then decide also to exempt the parents who smuggled them–President Trump could probably shut down the lottery and cut way back on family reunification.

There is no end to the good a president could do if he were really convinced that immigration should benefit us rather than foreigners. Today the executive branch is thick with people who make no secret of wanting “diversity” of every kind, and think immigration is the best way to get it. Imagine an executive run by people who were as sick of immigration–legal and illegal–as real Americans are. Imagine regular executive briefings on crimes committed by foreigners, on monthly deportation figures, on new miles of border wall completed, on frauds and criminals turned back at the border. Imagine an executive branch that cuts off funding to La Raza and MALDEF and all the “refugee” resettlement groups. Imagine a government that laughs at editorials in the New York Times, and that actually cares about the welfare of Americans.

A change in tone would be as dramatic as a change in policy because a president and his cabinet have tremendous influence that goes well beyond policy. They can put a subject on the national agenda just by talking about it. They can make it respectable just by continuing to talk about it. Actually looking at the pros and cons of immigrants could open the door to looking at the pros and cons of different groups of people. White, high-IQ, English-speaking people obviously assimilate best, and someone in a Trump administration might actually say so. A Trump presidency could completely change what is said about the difference between a crowd and a nation, and what it means to be an American.

So far, Mr. Trump has said little about race, but President Trump would certainly be no pushover for blacks. Al Sharpton–whom Mr. Trump has called a “professional conman”–would never darken the White House door again, and the Black Lives Matter frauds would get the cold shoulder.

And a Donald Trump presidency is no longer pure fantasy. He continues to widen his lead over Republican competitors. He is the first choice of 24 percent of registered Republicans—11 points ahead of his closest rival, Jeb Bush. He also comes in first as a second choice: 14 percent to Jeb Bush’s 10 percent. Sixty-nine percent of Republicans have a favorable view of Mr. Trump, which is eight points more than the 61 percent who view Mr. Bush favorably. A majority of Republicans who are likely to vote–57 percent–now think Mr. Trump will be the Republican candidate.

Just as important, according to a CNN/ORC poll of potential voters, Mr. Trump has pulled to within 6 percentage points (51 to 45) in a theoretical contest with Hillary Clinton. Just last month he was 16 points behind. Mr. Trump would get 55 percent of the white vote and 53 percent of the male vote; only women and non-whites continue to be strong Hillary backers.

The coming election is a combination of circumstances that will never repeat itself. Mr. Trump is a brand new face in politics, at a time when public trust in the federal government is close to a record low. His Republican opponents are nonentities. The most likely Democratic candidate is a shopworn harridan even her supporters don’t entirely trust.

Mr. Trump is also prepared to spend up to $1 billion of his own money to win the election. He says he turned down $5 million from a lobbyist, because he doesn’t want to owe favors to anyone. As the campaign continues, more and more voters will be impressed by his complete independence from special interests. Finally, when the time comes for street-level canvassing and get-out-the-vote drives, Mr. Trump will have armies of committed volunteers instead of the party hacks who are pushing his rivals.

There will never be another campaign like this one. If Mr. Trump loses, this could be the last chance whites have to vote for a president who could actually do something useful for them and for their country.

Trump Vows to Terminate US Birthright Citizenship – Reports

‘ll leave it to the legal scholars to debate the fine points, but it’s no accident that one week before the midterms, President Trump says he wants to revoke birthright citizenship.

Sure, he did it in an interview with Jim VandeHei and Jonathan Swan of Axios for the premiere of the website’s string of HBO specials. And yes, Trump expressed surprise that the journalists, who had been digging into the issue, knew about his secret plan to move against the practice.

But the president easily could have deflected the question. Presented with the opportunity, he wanted this out there as a pre-election message.

For Trump to speak of eliminating the practice where illegal immigrants can arrange to have babies in this country, and they automatically become American citizens, is very much part of his eleventh-hour push on immigration. At a time when he has been pounding away at the Central American caravan — at least until that narrative was interrupted by terror attacks — birthright citizenship is shrewdly targeted to his base.

When pressed, he said that “you can definitely do it with an Act of Congress. But now they’re saying I can do it just with an executive order … It’s ridiculous. It’s ridiculous. And it has to end.”

The president made this argument: “We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years, with all of those benefits.”

That is wrong. As the New York Times points out, “dozens of other countries, including Canada, Mexico and many others in the Western Hemisphere, grant automatic birthright citizenship, according to a study by the Center for Immigration Studies, an organization that supports restricting immigration and whose work Mr. Trump’s advisers often cite.”

There is also the not insignificant matter of the 14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Some conservatives have argued that the 14th Amendment was intended to apply only to citizens and permanent legal residents.

What’s interesting to me is that the right fiercely objected when Barack Obama used his executive power to stop the deportation of the dreamers, saying this was a horrible abuse of presidential authority. They did have a point that Obama was trying to accomplish with a pen what he could not get passed into law, which is why the issue remains unresolved and Trump can threaten to expel younger immigrants unless Congress acts.

HOW MANY TIMES HAVE WE HIGHLIGHTED THE FIASCO OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT. NOW THAT KAVANAUGH IS ON THE COURT WE CAN ADJUDICATE THE FIASCO THAT HAS BEEN UNTOUCHED FOR 15O YEARS.

PREVIOUS INFO ON THE 14TH AMENDMENT:

Two years after the Civil War, the Reconstruction Acts of 1867 divided the South into five military districts, where new state governments, based on universal manhood suffrage, were to be established. Thus began the period known as Radical Reconstruction, which saw the 14th Amendment, which had been passed by Congress in 1866, ratified in July 1868. The amendment resolved pre-Civil War questions of African American citizenship by stating that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States…are citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside.” The amendment then reaffirmed the privileges and rights of all citizens, and granted all these citizens the “equal protection of the laws.”

AN UN-GOING CRIME IS BEING COMMITTED – THE SUPREME COURT MUST ONCE AGAIN MUST STEP IN AND ADJUDICATE

Overwhelming evidence against the interpretation of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” or “not subject to any foreign power” as reaffirming the common law doctrine of citizenship by birth to aliens can be found following the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. In 1867 George Helm Yeaman, United States Minister to Denmark, in his well received treatise on allegiance and citizenship, which was presented to Secretary of State William H. Seward, said: “But the idea of a double allegiance and citizenship united in the same person, and having reference to two separate, independent, and sovereign nations or governments, is simply an impossibility.”

In the year 1873 the United States Attorney General ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean, which Justice Gray would recognize in Elk v.Wilkins years later:

The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them. (14 Op. Atty-Gen. 300.)

House Report No. 784, dated June 22, 1874, stated, “The United States have not recognized a double allegiance. By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.” There is no way in the world anyone can claim “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” affirms the feudal common law doctrine of birth citizenship to aliens because such doctrine by operation creates a “double allegiance” between separate nations.

If there is one inescapable truth to the text and debates, it is this: When Congress decided to require potential citizens to first be subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States they by default excluded all citizens of other nations temporarily residing in the U.S. who had no intention of becoming citizens themselves or, disqualified of doing so under naturalization laws. This was no oversight because it was too simple to declare the common law rule of jus soli if indeed that was truly the desired goal by these very competent lawyers (both Howard and Trumbull were lawyers).

Aaron Sargent, a Representative from California during the Naturalization Act of 1870 debates said the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause was not a de-facto right for aliens to obtain citizenship. No one came forward to dispute this conclusion.

Empirical evidence has provided us with answers to a problem we face today and into the foreseeable future. The lame stream media has regressed to a point that even the facts don’t matter. One thing must be addressed first off, that is the dynasty of political families who have consolidated power through the government. For instance the collusion of the FBI and the Clinton campaign which ended so abruptly that further investigation is mandatory. But for now we leave it at that because the time is fast approaching where the collaborators will see the iron bars close behind them.

Back to our initial bomb throwers thesis. Take Chris Cuomo, who like his brother and father, woven of the same cloth, are guilty of incitement. They do this through mis-information, propaganda and outright lies. How so? Their networks provide the fodder for them to attack free speech, free thought and last but certainly no least, they attack the U.S. Constitution through mass media. Their audience believes everything they say, truth or lie.

Click here as Cuomoweighs in on the Christmas presents sent to progressive democrats. Cuomo blames Trump, Trump, Trump and Trump. Cuomo doesn’t understand the truth, never did. He still, along with the libtard media, still can’t get over the fact that “lock her up” got beaten badly two years ago. Don’t forget vitriol and divisiveness is not because of Trump, but Obama is the originator of class welfare. A Muslim sympathizer condoned the killing of 400,000 plus in Syria. You hear nothing about that though. And how about the two pukes, who got what they deserved, justice. Obama inflamed the populace with his racist remarks, didn’t he?

Listen to Cuomo, form your own opinion, and no doubt the majority of people who don’t have a screw loose will agree, that these political low lifes, the low IQ types, are ANTIFA criminals in their own right. No American will believe what they say, ever, because of their bias, vitriolic invective, and pure propaganda that comes from the gutter politics they preach.

CUOMO AND HIS BROTHER ARE VERY DANGEROUS INDIVIDUALS IN THEIR OWN RIGHT.

As those who don’t depend on the Ministry of Leftist Propaganda, aka, the “mainstream” media, are aware, a growing army of foreign invaders is moving north through Mexico toward our southern border. The leftist Mexican government, with its plethora of draconian immigration laws, is not only doing nothing to stop them, it is actively supporting, aiding, and abetting them. This is a blatant, albeit slightly indirect, attack upon us, going way beyond its policy of aiding and abetting its own citizens in entering the US illegally. In response, President Trump needs to immediately rescind the recently negotiated trade agreement and consider imposing severe economic sanctions.

In addition, and more importantly, Article lV, Section lV, of the Constitution states,

The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion…

Thus, as Commander-in-Chief, sending troops to the border is not just an option, it is a requirement of the Constitution. Repeat: it is a requirement of the Constitution.

Unfortunately, this is not as simple as it sounds. Given that the invading army appears to be organized and paid for by our Enemies Domestic, and that it is clearly timed to coincide with the upcoming midterm elections – another Democrat “October Surprise” – it needs to be looked at from more than just a military/law enforcement point of view. There has been a lot of speculation by all sorts of “pundits” and “experts” as to why this is happening, what is the hoped-for outcome, who will benefit, etc, etc. However, I have yet to hear what, in my never humble opinion, is a highly likely conclusion of this dangerous, and probably tragic farce.

The Setup: Thousands of poor, ignorant, unskilled and unemployed people, along with a large portion of criminals and foreign terrorists mass on the Mexican side of the border. Note that these are the dregs and jetsam of their society; they are definitely, in the eyes of their various governments, expendable. On the American side, troops and law enforcement agents, arraigned against the invaders.

The Trigger: Snipers and gunmen, acting as agent provocateurs open fire on the troops across the border, and, less obviously, on the “migrants”, causing the troops to return fire.

The Result: Hundreds of invaders, and American soldiers and law enforcement agents killed and wounded. The Democrats and the Ministry of Leftist Propaganda, in a preplanned effort to turn voters away from Republicans, go berserk, calling it a premeditated massacre of innocent immigrants on the orders of President Trump and his racist, immigrant-hating supporters, and the Nazi military.

Sound far-fetched, folks? Wait and see. Watch and learn. Time for President Trump to seriously think outside the box.

Trump tweeted a 2005 video in which Obama, then a senator, made a statement against illegal immigration, accompanied by the comment “I agree with President Obama 100%”.

“We are a generous and welcoming people here in the United States,” Obama says in the 31-second clip. “But those who enter the country illegally and those who employ them disrespect the rule of law and they are showing disregard for those who are following the law.

We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently and lawfully to become immigrants into this country.”